Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 18 of about 214 results (0.022 seconds)Jeet Singh Vs. Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT617; 2005(80)DRJ197; [2005(105)FLR724]; 2006(2)SLJ245(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this petition, seeks quashing of the order of punishment imposed and prays for exoneration. Petitioner had joined the services of respondent as Junior Clerk on 3rd November, 1966. In due course, he was promoted to Senior Clerk and then to Superintendent (Clerical). At the relevant time during 1992-1993, petitioner was posted as Superintendent (NT) Stationery Store.2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was in the following terms:-' Sh.Jeet Singh, E.No.7256, while working as Store Supdt.(NT) Stationary Store, RPH, during 1991-1992 with malafide intention with a view to extend undue benefit to supplier deliberately in connivance with store keeper Baldev Raj as well as with party, accepted and approved the inflated quantity of 1000m Nos. Note and correspondence sheet pads vide store receipt acknowledgment No. 169 dated 21.02.1992 prepared against Challan No. 139 dt. 21....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi419; 116(2005)DLT322; 2005(80)DRJ307
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present appeal, under letters patent, is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge dated 28.04.2004 in WP (C) 272/2003. By the judgment, the writ petition of the respondent was allowed, with certain directions.2. The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the power of the appellant to insist upon payment of damages as a pre-condition for conversion of leasehold property into freehold.3. The predecessor in interest of the respondent Late Shri Lakshmi Chand was the perpetual lessee of Plot No. 1 Block 90, 1, at Jain Mandir Road, New Delhi further to a lease deed executed on 15.03.1922. A two storied building was constructed on that plot ('the plot') in 1935. On the death of Lakshmi Chand, the property and the plot was mutated as per letter dated 06.06.1963 in the name of the petitioner. Later, apparently, the respondent made certain additional constructions as per the Resolution of the New Delhi Municipal Committee but the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Gupta Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2005)ACC361; 2006ACJ1901; 117(2005)DLT112
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A State is the comity of individuals. The object is the existence of individuals governed by certain norms agreed to by the society. A duly constituted Government derives its authority and power from the governed. Democracy is the principle of governance where the persons to be governed elect the Government by the rule of majority.2. The classical theory of social contract highlights that the social contract is on account of the rules of conduct required by a just society. All persons are basically the same in terms of the innate human nature and the society is created and the norms are laid about the interaction between individuals amongst themselves. Since the people rationally foresee the consequences, they authorize a power to create a social environment in which the people adhere to their respective promises to govern the society. The most important aspect is the necessity of Government in the interest of all citizens where people are essentially free and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mukut Lal Duggal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006ACJ1576; 117(2004)DLT74; 2005(82)DRJ70; (2005)141PLR10
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The necessity of prompt medical attention in case of emergency cannot but be emphasised. In the absence of any social security systems in this behalf, the insurance companies had come up with the medi-claim policies to cater to such medical emergencies. The cost of medical treatment has increased manifold over a period of time and thus appropriate medical treatment can be out of the reach of citizens unless the citizens are covered by such medi-claim policy.2. The petitioners are husband and wife and got themselves insured under the Medi-claim Insurance Scheme of the respondent insurance company in 1995-96. Petitioner No. 1 in July, 1998 suffered coronary disease and was admitted in the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre where he underwent Angioplasty. The claim made for medical treatment was paid by the respondent. In April 2000 petitioner No. 2 also got herself insured and a single policy was issued. In January 2001, petitioner No. 1 was once again a...
Tag this Judgment!Emmsons International Ltd. Vs. Metal Distributors (Uk) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2005)BC465; 2005(1)CTLJ39(Del); 116(2005)DLT559; 2005(80)DRJ256
R.C. Jain, J.1. M/s Metal Distributors (UK) Limited-defendant No. 1 who is facing a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,61,145/- for the alleged defective supply of Copperwarebars has filed this application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint or for its return to the plaintiff for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. English Courts. It is alleged in the application that the suit of the plaintiff is based on a contracted5.11.1996 entered between defendant No. 1-applicant through their agents Binani Metal Ltd-defendant No. 2 for supply of continuous cast Electrolytic Copper Wire Rods at a price of USD 2194 per Metric Ton, CIF Bombay. The contract entered into between the parties is stated to be an international commercial contract containing Clause 13 which provides for the dispute redressal mechanism through arbitration and that the contract shall be construed in accordance with and governe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Del)384; [2005]277ITR337(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dt. 7th July, 2004, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench. It is not necessary for us to state in greater detail the facts giving rise to the present appeal. Suffice it to note that the order under Section 143(3)(i) of the Act was passed by the AO and at the end of the said order he also issued demand notice and challan for imposition of penalty as assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant part of the order reads as under ;'Assessed. Charge interest. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.Sd/-(A. Joseph)ITO, Ward 17(3), New Delhi'2. Against this order an appeal was filed and the order was sustained by the appellate authority. However, on a further appeal by the assessed, the Tribunal vide its order dt. 7th July, 2004, accepted the appeal and set aside all the orders of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!indo Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT314TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 1-10-2001 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand with penalty against the company-appellant No. 1 and imposed penalties on other two appellants as detailed therein.2. The company, appellant No. 1, is engaged in the manufacture of un-wrought zinc and its by-products (zinc ingot and zinc metallic residue). The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellant-company and penalty has been imposed on its Managing Director appellant No. 2, on the allegations that they had cleared zinc ingots in the guise of zinc metallic residue and thereby paid less duty than the duty required to be paid by them on zinc ingots. They also undervalued the goods by making clearances through related company after appellant No. 3. By misdeclaration of the goods, they had evaded duty of Rs. 25,335/- and by undervaluation of Rs. 7,74,218/-. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty on these ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Pepsi Foods Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT603TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the package of 40 gm lays potato chips to be supplied free alongwith pepsi of 1.5 litre are assessable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of assessing the excise duty.3. In the present appeal the contention of the Revenue is that these are notified goods and they are assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that lay potato chips are required to be affixed with retail sale price under the provisions of the Standards of Weights & measures Act, 1976. Therefore, they are liable to be assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. Commissioner 4. In this case the undisputed facts are that the packet of lay does not contain any MRP and it would bear the text "free with 1.5 litre Pepsi and no...
Tag this Judgment!Bilaspur Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC317
1. This appeal came up for reporting compliance of the Stay Order. Shri R.K. Singh, Ld. Advocate stated that the disputed duty amount alongwith penalty has been adjusted by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bareilly against their refund claim. He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal may be disposed of as they are not contesting the recovery of the duty amount, but the penalty amount may be waived.2. Shri S. Bhatnagar, Ld. JDR pleaded that the appellants had taken Modvat credit on original copy of invoice and they have neither reported the loss for duplicate copy to the Asstt. Commissioner nor given any reason therefor. Therefore, credit was disallowed to them by following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 272 (LB) : 2000 (117) ELT 571. Since the appellants had taken Modvat credit on invalid documents, therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed on them.3. Considering the submissions made by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alamgir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC621
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification is available to the Respondents M/s. Alamgir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact the notice of hearing sent to the Respondents has been received back from the postal authorities undelivered. We, therefore, heard Shri A.S. Bedi, learned S.D.R., and perused the records. The case of the Revenue is that the Respondents were manufacturing excisable goods bearing the brand name 'Tula' which is identical to the brand name of Tirupati Chemicals who are having their brand name 'Taraju' and monogram used by both is weighing scale. Shri S.K. Sahu, authorized signatory in his statement, dated 15-1-1997 admitted that both the respondents and M/s. Tirupati Chemicals are sister concern and having one office. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed them the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No.16/97-C.E., ...
Tag this Judgment!